Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence

Do NOT remove other users' evidence from this page. If you do, you will be be blocked without further warning.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Kurtis

Clarity of the BLP policy

The biographies of living persons policy mentions absolutely nothing about gender identity and how it should be handled. Since Manning's self-identification as transsexual, there have been only four revisions to the page, none of which pertained to this issue. This is to illustrate that it was not clearly defined at the time; nothing about gender identity was either added or removed.

MOS:IDENTITY

The issue of gender identity is, however, covered in the Manuel of Style. According to MOS:IDENTITY as of August 20,[1] two days prior to Manning's self-identification as female:

“ Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time). ”

Verifiability

Manning became a high-profile public figure well before she revealed her true gender identity. As such, most sources will refer to her as "Bradley Manning", using male pronouns such as "he", "him", "his", etc. But since Manning came out as female, many major media outlets have followed suit. For example: the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, etc. Thus, the name "Chelsea Manning" now satisfies this guideline.

Preference of Manning

Manning herself has asked that people refer to her using female pronouns.[2][3]

Manning move war

The sequence of events that occurred between several trusted users (mostly administrators) on August 22 can be viewed in the page's public logs. To give a basic synopsis:

• Administrator Morwen initiated the first move shortly after becoming aware of Manning's announcement. This was done without discussion with very little discussion (presumably with respect to BLP).

• Cls14, a reviewer with the autopatrolled flag, reversed Morwen's move with the following summary: "This is a bloke called Bradley Manning". He was unaware of Manning's announcement at the time, and apologized to Morwen shortly thereafter. He is not a party to this case.

• Likely assuming a misunderstanding on Cls14's part, Morwen altered the title again (one minute prior to his post on her talk page).

• Pursuant to a listing made by StAnselm at requested moves, administrator Tariqabjotu moved the article back to its original name pending further discussion. StAnselm is not listed as an involved party.

• Tariqabjotu's action was reversed by administrator David Gerard, whose edit summary was as follows: "Reverting move per WP:BLP". There was no attempt at discussion beforehand, nor was there any prior notice given to Tariqabjotu. David's unilateral action drew both praise and criticism from several other users on his talk page; he has defended his move by saying that BLP "mandates immediatism." For contextual purposes only, David is a former arbitrator and once had access to the checkuser and oversight tools, before having advanced permissions removed for behavioral irregularities.

• On that related note, administrator Mark Arsten fully protected the article due to the content dispute. David reversed this action, justifying it by saying that "the moves were all admins; actual vandalism to the text hasn't been a problem so far". Mark took issue with this and chimed in on the discussion at David's talk page (see the link in the above bullet for details). Mark Arsten is not a party to this case.

• After a nine-day move request on the article's talk page, administrator BD2412 closed it on August 31 in conjunction with a volunteer "three-administrator panel" consisting of himself, Kww, and BOZ. The consensus, as interpreted by these three editors, The decision was to retain the article's original title — Bradley Manning — largely per WP:COMMONNAME and confusion over the remits of MOS:IDENTITY, and also because there was no consensus for the move. BD2412 also placed a 30-day moratorium on any new proposals to rename the article. None of these three administrators are listed as parties to this case.

• Addendum — Sorry, missed the talk page discussion mentioned by Psychonaut below. I've now fixed that part of my evidence to more accurately convey the actual dispute. In case there were any misunderstandings, I never meant to cast Morwen's move in a negative light. I should also note that my reference to her being an administrator was purely for contextual purposes, and does not pertain to the rename itself.
• Addendum #2 — Per Kww's post on my talk page, I also mistakenly misrepresented BD2412's decision as reflecting community consensus, when in fact none existed (I read through the discussion, but I'd forgotten to change that before saving the page).

Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof

Opposition riven with personal biases and ignorance of transgenderism

A significant number of !votes in the requested move discussion included statements that indicated the user's personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism. These statements are not necessarily indicative of intentional transphobia (though some are), but they are indicative of a failure to understand or accept a modern medical and psychological understanding of transgender people. They often demonstrate a profound insensitivity to the article subject that is at odds with human decency — up to and including complete denial of her gender identity.

• IFreedom1212 refers to Manning as a male and claims that "he is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action." [4]
• Carrite calls the move "activist stupidity... bringing WP into disrepute" and demands that the article not be renamed until Manning undergoes sex change surgery [5]
• Norden1990 rejects Manning's transgenderism entirely, saying "he is definitely male." [6]
• An anonymous IP user asserts that renaming the article is "radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male)." [7]
• An anonymous IP user claims that renaming the article was "done only to please the social justice warriors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics." [8]
• CombatWombat42 says "Actually my biggest problem with this whole debate is people telling me what I have to do. There is no framework for issues like this and it should be discussed and figured out, but I am not a person that likes to be told "you have to do it this way" especially when their reason is "I want it to be that way" or "It makes me feel better". Please stop implying that all gender identity issues have been worked out and that everyone agreees with you, some people are uncomfertable calling people who are genetically and physically male "her" and "she" for any number of reasons." [9]
• An anonymous IP user claims "I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime." [10]
• Fightin' Phillie says "(S)He is a male, was through the entire trial, and will be throughout the entire prison sentence. (S)He has been and will be a male for everything that (s)he is notable for." [11]
• Surfer43 says "No matter what he says, he is still himself" - with bolding as per the original. [12]
• Count Truthstein says "The subject is still male in every meaningful sense." [13]
• Necrothesp says "Oh come on, let's be real here. Who the hell is Chelsea Manning? What he chooses to call himself now is utterly irrelevant." [14]
• Wasmachien says "While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere." [15]
• Cjarbo2 writes "I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left." [16]
• Daniel32708 says "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda." [17]
• Taylor_Trescott wrote ""I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing." [18]
• Tarc claimed that "his actual name is Bradley Manning" and called the move "LGBT politics run amok." [19]
• Alandeus opposed the move on the grounds that "1) Gender change currently is just a wish and not official. 2) Gender change is not carried out physically." [20]
• ColonelHenry refers to transgenderism and Manning's announcement as a "one-day circus freak show." [21]
• Scottywong says "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not." [22]
• Hitmonchan says "He's still a man." [23]
• DebashisM says "Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender." [24]
• Toyokuni3 says "this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male." [25]
• WeldNeck says "He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths." [26]
• DHeyward says "he is Bradley Manning and will be until his sentence is served. He will be housed with male inmates and will not be given any gender reassigmnent. He can call himself anything he likes, but legally his name is Bradley Manning, He is widely known as Bradley Manning and the Army will only refer to him as Bradley Manning. "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist." [27]
• TeddyTesseract says "Wikipedia (which purports to be an encyclopaedia) and it's talk pages shouldn't become a forum for LGBT activism WP:ACTIVIST . "Sensitivity" for Private Manning's feelings (who is a criminal convicted of treason) is just a red herring. This entire episode has been a phenomenally successful work of internet activism; The topic of transgender-ism (originating from THIS very page) has now made most mainstream media outlets (with the exception of the left wing press, the reputation of wikipedia has taken a severe battering)." [28]

Similar comments outside of the !vote

The !vote for the requested move was hardly the only area where such comments were made.

Tarc

• "This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know." [29]
• "There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning" here. What we have is a man named "Bradley Manning" who wants to be called by this other name (and awhile ago it was reportedly "Breanna") and referred to as "she"." [30]
• "It is not a fringe opinion, it is a very real one that is tied to the rejection of political correctness. I give no credence to Bearcat's "medical records are private therefore we just have to go by what the subject says", it's just too absurd to even address. ... Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so. You can deride that as "fringe" if that's what makes you comfortable with yourself, I really don't plan to spend much time haranguing you on why that's incorrect. But from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, we're still at the simple place and time where Manning is still regarded as a male, and generally addresses him as such." [31]
• "If we're addressing him by a masculine name, then we should certainly be addressing him by masculine pronouns. Seriously, it is about time for the political correctness to take a backseat to common sense." [32]

Others

• Hitmonchan says "Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum and replaced with synthetic ovaries and has his sex changed from "male" to "female" will I call Manning a "she", but for now, if you have testicles and aren't a hermaphrodite, you are subjected to be referred to with male nouns." [33]
• Theofficeprankster wrote "Apparently the liberal thing to do these days is to pretend that we don't know this person has a penis." [34]

Evidence presented by Psychonaut

Corrigendum to Kurtis's timeline

Kurtis's timeline of the #Manning move war above contains a few problems. Specifically, he writes that the initial move by "Administrator Morwen… was done without discussion". In the ensuing move discussions, this was an oft-repeated falsehood, and I am disappointed to see it reproduced here, despite numerous refutations by Morwen herself and other editors.

To once again set the record straight, is absolutely untrue that the move was carried out without discussion. The article talk page as it appeared at the time of the move shows that a brief discussion had occurred between three users: 68.81.192.33 (whose opening comment was unsigned), Nicholas Perkins, and Morwen. Morwen was a participant in, but not the initiator of, this discussion.

Also, though it's true that Morwen is an administrator, this move (and her subsequent one) did not require administrator privileges; any autoconfirmed user had all the requisite permissions to move the page. Morwen also never specifically invoked her authority as an administrator when making the moves. Despite this, Morwen's putative "abuse of the admin tools" was another scurrilous falsehood often repeated in the ensuing discussions of the move.

Evidence presented by Josh Gorand

Interpretation of BLP

It is true that WP:BLP, while requiring "a high degree of sensitivity" and consideration for the "possibility of harm to living subjects", does not specifically mention transgendered people, but BLP only includes the most basic principles and needs to be interpreted in light of more specific guidelines, in this case particularly MOS:IDENTITY. Furthermore, interpretation of BLP has evolved over the years, to include, as User:Sue Gardner (commenting as an editor) eloquently put it, the consideration for "the ethical implications of our actions, to respect the basic human dignity of subjects, to not mock or disparage, and to hold as our guiding principle the desire to do no harm."[35]

While MOS:IDENTITY does not mention article titles specifically, it would be a highly inconsistent interpretation of that guideline to assume it doesn't cover it. The basic principle of MOS:IDENTITY is that Wikipedia needs to respect a "person's latest (original emphasis) expressed gender self-identification" in "any phase of that person's life."

WP:POLICY states:

"Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY states:

"Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus."

Wikipedia:Five pillars states:

"Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording"

According to the Transgender Law Center,

"it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates one's identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide."[36]

The Leveson Inquiry stated that the use of former names "causes obvious distress" and may be "intensely painful."[37]

Specifically discussing this case, a blog post by digital media ethics scholar Amy Dobrowolsky argues that misgendering a transgendered person is perceived by transgendered people and others as a form of (verbal/psychological) violence, and that "old names are frequently weaponised against us."[38]

The way we treat Manning does not only affect Manning herself, but has a profound effect on other transgendered people who read this article and society at large.

Other media

The overwhelming majority of English language media have started using the name Chelsea Manning in response to the request by that person to be referred to as such (more here). Manning's lawyer has referred to these media as the "responsible media" that have "elected to respect her wishes and refer to her by her new name."[39]

Addendum

I have not focused on WP:COMMONNAME because the arbitration case primarily is concerned with the events surrounding the original move and interpretations of BLP invoked when it was moved at that time, and not the content decision to be made from 30 September onwards. However, as has been demonstrated, COMMONNAME now supports the title Chelsea Manning because most sources now use that name, per the evidence collected by different users on the page mentioned above.

Evidence presented by thehistorian10

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

WP:MOS and WP:MOS Identity

I concur in the arguments presented that Wikipedia:MOS is in dispute here. However, MOS:IDENTITY doesn't technically apply. MOS:IDENTITY doesn't mention anything about titles. This is an argument about titles, and nothing else. MOS:IDENTITY itself quite clearly states that it does not apply to titles.

The application of WP:TITLES and WP:COMMONNAME

WP:TITLES trumps WP:BLP. BLP is a guideline, and is therefore not technically enforceable. Whilst BLP does say that it applies to titles, it does not cover this scenario, and is therefore unenforceable for two reasons. Further, this is supported by the fact that the admins who decided the move request clearly stated that BLP does not apply to article titles. Therefore, Josh Goarand's attempts to invoke BLP, when it has been clearly stated to be inapplicable, are dead in the water.

WP:TITLES especially requires that when deciding on titles for articles, it should be that the more commonly recognised title should be used. In this circumstance, the subject of this article was more commonly known as Bradley, as that is his birth name. the name "Chelsea" only came out recently, and even stil, nearly a month after the release of the statement declaring the change of name, not every news source has adopted it. An example is the BBC, one of the most respected news sources in the world.

In closing the original move case, the admins stated that WP:COMMONNAME is the basic policy that should be worked from when deciding on article titles. As I have stated, this policy dictates that Bradley Manning be the title.

rebuttal to other users' "evidence"

I have rebutted Josh Gorand's evidence already, and will not deal with it again here. I can only respond to User:Kurtis by stating that his reliance on newspapers to satisfy the WP:COMMONNAME is unstable. These newspapers are biased and partial, with publicly known political allegiances. Some other sources, which have not been mentioned, might disagree and remain with Bradley (cf. BBC). Use impartial and uncontroversial sources.

Regarding the "preference" argument made by Kurtis, it should be borne in mind that in Manning's own statement, he still accepts male pronouns in official matters. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is an "official matter", and thus the male pronouns should be used.

I do not disagree with the timelines submitted by User:Psychonaught, and Kurtis (notwithstanding my rebuttal to other parts of Kurtis' submission). I also concur with and adopt the submissions of User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Having reread User:Josh Gorand's submission, the vague reference to "The Leveson Report" doesn't help. The report is very large, and more specific references are needed in order to substantiate points made that rely on the Leveson Report.

I hope I have been of use to this Most Honourable Committee, and this concludes my submissions to this committee. --The Historian (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification presented by MONGO

Just to clarify that Thehistorian10 is incorrect...BLP is a policy, not a guideline, and it IS enforceable.--MONGO 22:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

David Gerard misused administrative tools while involved in the dispute

After one non-admin moved the article back to Bradley Manning and Gerard rejected another non-admin's suggestion it should go through the Requested Move process, Gerard move-protected the page so that only admins could change the title. Over the period of an hour the discussion largely focused on style guidelines, with only Gerard suggesting it was a BLP issue. Despite this, when an uninvolved admin reverted the move as needing to go through RM, Gerard promptly reverted it back. Being involved in a move-war is one thing, but in this case Gerard appears to have imposed move-protection to lock out non-admin who disagreed with him and reverted an uninvolved admin through that protection to keep the title he wanted.

David Gerard has prior history of misusing administrative tools

• As discussed here, Gerard oversighted edits in 2007 due to them being embarrassing for another editor and not because of any policy objection. He claimed it was justified because it was being used for "trolling", but should have merely been deleted instead, though many editors did not accept his rationale as even justifying revision deletion.
• Was found here in a 2008 case to have shown ownership behavior when edit-warring over a page regarding IRC, including use of page protection as part of the dispute.
• In this instance he used Checkuser against an opposing disputant from the IRC case noted above and subsequently blocked the editor for using an openly acknowledged joke account. The block was quickly overturned.
• Having apparently disclosed another editor's personal information on his blog, Gerard was stripped of his oversighter and checkuser privileges in 2009.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Patroit22

Name for mail and pardon

The pro and con discussions are heated and not productive foe Wikipedia. The web site for support of her is titled "Pvt, Manning Support Network and the subhead is "Bradley's Story". The mailing address for sending mail to her at the United States Detention Brig is:

Bradley Manning

889289 1300 N Warehouse Rd

Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304

The web site states that mail to her preferred name of Chelsea will probably be returned retuned as undeliverable. Her attorney submitted the request for pardon for Bradley Manning and used masculine pronouns. Any possible pardon will be for Brandling Manning and Wikipedia readers need that name for the title to keep track of legal proceedings. Arbitration should be based on facts and not emotions Peace.Patroit22 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {Your User Name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.